The human mind is a complex beast. It draws information from various sources. Sometimes, odd things stick with us, and over time, our mind treats them as “facts”. Only one day, we find that it isn’t a fact at all. You’ll be surprised how often you are wrong.

For example, take a recent debate: “Is outsourcing jobs to other countries bad for America?” Readers get to vote yes or no, and then substantiate their argument. Anyone is free to read all the arguments, presented neatly under “yes” or “no” on the site. The best arguments get voted to the top.

Reading through the debate, you will find points you agree with, points you disagree with, and even some solid facts and figures. Maybe it will change your mind or perhaps further strengthen your position. Either way, you will come out wiser.

Let’s say you have a deeply rooted belief. For example, you might believe that “giving money to homeless people is a waste”. Do you have the guts to ask others to prove you wrong? If yes, try it out at the Change My View subreddit.

The sub-reddit has a group of active moderators who quickly remove any abusive posts. The exchanges are informational and engaging, and devoid of silly trolls. Even if your opinion doesn’t change, you might get some new points of view to consider it from.

The big topic of discussion since the last U.S. Presidential election has been “fake news” or the filter bubble we find ourselves in. But if the media is already taking sides, how do you find the truth, or rather, a balanced perspective?

All Sides classifies news outlets into three political sides, presented in side-by-side columns:

Left (Washington Post, New York Times, etc.)

Center (Politico, NPR, Christian Science Monitor, etc.)

Right (Breitbart, National Review, etc.)

It deals almost exclusively with American political news, or topics that affect the political world. You can browse the feeds on the site, or filter the news by issue. Click any news item and you’ll read it in full, along with prompts from All Sides to read the topic’s coverage from the other two sides.

Reading this site regularly, your news consumption will be more balanced. And by knowing the different perspectives on any issue, you might just discover things you always held true, but are completely wrong.

Wikipedia users have created a massive list of the most common misconceptions. This relevant XKCD comic describes its need better than we ever could:

The “misconception” isn’t actually written, but implied instead. What you get are facts, which thoroughly debunk your wrongly held beliefs. The list covers a range of topics, including food, music, literature, biology, history, astronomy, human body, religion, health, mathematics, science, and much more.

Our mind likes to trick our brain into believing that it’s right. Over time, this leads to us creating biases. Biases can be both positive or negative, but it’s important to identify these deeply rooted subconscious factors. If they are affecting your behavior, you aren’t being fair — to others or to yourself.

Google now puts its employees through a guide to identify such unconscious bias. These exercises, which last roughly two hours, won’t magically break your biases. But research shows that being aware of these stereotypes is enough to change your patterns.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Mr. Crispy

March 25, 2017 at 8:16 pm

Is the description of that website "All Sides" accurate? It categorizes the Washington Post and New York Times as "Left"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

When the examples of "Right" politics are Breitbart and National Review, maybe try Jezebel and Mother Jones as more viable examples of more comparable examples of political perspective from opposite sides of the spectrum. Seriously WaPo and NYT are center-left on a few social issues but cetner-right on most economic and policy issues. What a joke. No wonder our country's so messed up when the so-called "liberal media" is actually center-right.

"John Smith (FAKE NAME!)"
Really?
So you are telling me my first and last name that I am using are fake?
Getting triggered by your own fantasies and conspiracy theories?
How old are you? I have seen 5 year olds with more maturity that what you spew so far.

But hey, I can scream "Ryan Cox (FAKE NAME!)" too, and see how you look.
If you think that makes you look smart or funny, then I have some news for you, it does not. It actually makes you look foolish.

"wingnuts"
I'd be a "wingnut" any day, much better than a libtard, and you prove me right again.

So now you are obsessed with Rush Limbaugh too? Let me guess, you were one of those geniuses who tried to throw him off the air and failed?
Here is what may surprise you. Most of us constitutional conservatives don't consider Rush a constitutional conservative. He is a conservative, but he adjusts some times, which is anything but a principled conservative.
Yes, the left is full of fringe groups, lunatics, militant commies, unless you were living in a cave since the November elections or watch MSNBC/Madcow 24/7, which you sound like one of those triggered low information snowflakes.
So Johnny come lately to the thread, take your far left defensive copy/paste talking points to someone who cares/falls for your nonsense, weak troll.

Howard A Pearce

March 25, 2017 at 2:40 pm

"All Sides classifies news outlets into three political sides, presented in side-by-side columns:"

The biggest fault with that system is assuming the political structure can be mapped into one dimension! A structure very few have ever questioned as really representing the political universe.
A dimension that conveniently pushes the 2 party structure of the left and the right and D's and R's while dismissing other possibilities entirely.

These recommended sites already get an F from me for assuming that basic structure to begin with.

The political structure for at least domestic policy is easily broken down into two basic beliefs that represent one's belief in freedom of personal association and one's belief in freedom of economic/business associations.
This is a 2 dimensional view of politics that represents 4 basic political positions
Freedom of all association (libertarian)
no freedom of association (authoritarian)
freedom of personal association (left-wing)
freedom of economic association (right-wing)
(with a centrist/moderate views if you want to make it 5 positions)

"John Smith (FAKE NAME!),"
Still obsessed with my real name, Johnny come lately to the thread?
Why don't you take another 5 days to get obsessed with a random person's name on the Internet?
Is you life that boring/meaningless?
Time to grow up, fake Ryan.

Wait, are you saying snopes is not far left, even when its own editors INSIST they are?
Look up who is Kim Lacapria, and what she posted regularly. But I think I am wasting my time, you are a far left low information troll.
That's just for starters. Other 'editors' of snopes openly say they are liberal activists.
But hey, if it wasn't for the low information crowd like you, they'd be out of business. They have people like you take the left apologist propaganda they post as facts or fact checking.
Even worse, you think we get our information from 'Conserapedia', and before this, Rush Limbaugh.
You wouldn't understand the concept of credibility if your life depended on it. Some of us are old enough to have seen the destruction the far left caused, and even fought that evil.

"I do grant that facts and reality do have a liberal bias ;-D"
Says it all, doesn't it?

Yeah, tell that to the people of Venezuela, Cuba, and other liberal/leftist (AKA socialist AKA progressive AKA communist) controlled failed states, run by dictators.

I knew I was responding to a triggered leftist snowflake.
What are you doing here?Don't you have a riot to go to?A flag burning 'rally' to attend?

ROFL!
Thanks for the laugh, my stalking pet troll.
You need to grow up, then do some research before you charge at others, that's a battle you are never going to win, since you are on the wrong side of this, with little to no facts to use on your side.

John Smith

March 31, 2017 at 7:21 am

"John Smith (FAKE NAME!),"
Still obsessed with my real name, Johnny come lately to the thread?
Why don't you take another 5 days to get obsessed with a random person's name on the Internet?
Is you life that boring/meaningless?
Time to grow up, fake Ryan.

Wait, are you saying snopes is not far left, even when its own editors INSIST they are?
Look up who is Kim Lacapria, and what she posted regularly. But I think I am wasting my time, you are a far left low information troll.
That's just for starters. Other 'editors' of snopes openly say they are liberal activists.
But hey, if it wasn't for the low information crowd like you, they'd be out of business. They have people like you take the left apologist propaganda they post as facts or fact checking.
Even worse, you think we get our information from 'Conserapedia', and before this, Rush Limbaugh.
You wouldn't understand the concept of credibility if your life depended on it. Too bad you hide behind your trolling mask.

"I do grant that facts and reality do have a liberal bias ;-D"
Says it all, doesn't it?
I knew I was responding to a triggered leftist snowflake.
What are you doing here?Don't you have a riot to go to?A flag burning 'rally' to attend?

ROFL!
Thanks for the laugh, my stalking pet troll.
I suggest you grow up, do some research before you charge at others, that's a battle you are never going to win, since you are on the wrong side of this, with little to no facts to use on your side.

snopes.com is an excellent site to blow holes in a lot of the junk that comes around online. Those who think the site has a political bias that does not agree with their own political bias are welcome to stay away from it. OTOH, I wonder how they have been able to come to that conclusion if they are not reading it!

You have to do a little research before you dismiss or support a site.
Also, those of us who dismiss it as biased, does not mean we never read what it publishes. Do you even think before you say such stuff? If we didn't read what snopes spews, then we would not be slamming it as a left apologist site. Get a grip.

Do a little research on its co-founder and owner David Mikkelson, his liberal past, his prostitution/porn connected wife, the site "administrator" who runs it when she is high (her own words), Snopes’ main political 'fact checker' Kim Lacapria, who openly says she is 'left leaning' and shares the opinion of 'liberal men and women pundits', her own words.
Not to mention getting called out by investigative journalists for lying, several times.
But don't worry, go back to your utopia and assume snopes is unbiased and credible. Then wonder why things are different in the real world.

I have been reading snopes.com for years. A number of my friends whose political views are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun also find that site to be very useful. I am sure that it will come as a major shock to you that there are folks in the world who do not think "liberal" is a nasty word.

snopes.com presents their evidence in their posts. You may choose (like some on the national political scene) to classify anything you don't like as 'fake news' if you want. That practice is called burying your head in the sand and has the 'benefit' of getting enough dirt in your eyes to prevent you from seeing reality.

Feel free to reply to this. I am sure others will be again amused by your diatribes. Don't worry about a reply. I don't usually spend much time trying to educate those who can, or will, not learn - and I am done with you.

John Smith

April 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm

Since the comment system is limiting the replies to your latest ignore comment, I will reply to it here.

"I have been reading snopes.com for years."
Yeah, it is showing in your ignorant responses. Your downright ignorance of basic facts, lack of common sense and the sheer bias are obvious in your comments/responses. The indoctrination is working on you.

" A number of my friends whose political views are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun also find that site to be very useful. "

This is again showing your ignorance and bias. Likening someone whom their views are different than yours to a brutal dictator and mass murderer. That is so typical of the low information crowd, who seem to copy/paste the same talking points. Amazing how they do it word for word too. You are doing it now.

"I am sure that it will come as a major shock to you that there are folks in the world who do not think "liberal" is a nasty word.""

Nothing shocks me form the left and their minions. The lines are so blurred between craziness and nastiness that nothing matters anymore. The problem is with the low information crowd like yourself, who also have imaginary friends are that are more vicious than "Attila the Hun", they keep forgetting how today's re-branded communists hijacked the term liberal (along with many other things), and now it is associated with their lunacy.

"snopes.com presents their evidence in their posts. "
Oh yeah, very valid reference to prove how they are biased. They say they are not.

"You may choose (like some on the national political scene) to classify anything you don't like as 'fake news' if you want.
Once again, the low information crowd membership is causing you to look uninformed and foolish.
The "fake news!" screams are coming from the left and their minions whenever real world data shows their lunacy or debunkes their nasty narratives. They are not happy now that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

"That practice is called burying your head in the sand and has the 'benefit' of getting enough dirt in your eyes to prevent you from seeing reality."

And you are doing exactly that. You chose to ignore all the references you were given about snopes's owner, his wife who is running the show there, and their polical "fact checkers" who admit they are liberal activists.
But then again, you are on the left, and this is expected from you. The lack of self awareness, and the "do as I say and not as I do" MO which liberals are known for.

"Feel free to reply to this. I am sure others will be again amused by your diatribes. "
Coming from someone whose feeling got hurt when his ignorance was called out, and responded by personal attacks, this is both rich and entertaining to read.

"Don't worry about a reply. "
Don't worry, I never worry about the low information crowd. You people use the drive by comment style, throw a nasty hit and run away, hoping to have the last word on things, and then bury your head in your own backside, or put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la, I can't hear you", and assume you won the argument.

"I don't usually spend much time"
Could have fooled me. You spent all that time to post your run-rants about your imaginary friends and defending a failed leftist apologist outlet by posting personal attacks.
Tell us another one.

"trying to educate those who can, or will, not learn"
In order to do that, you need to be:
Educated
Familiar with topic
Know what you are advocating or arguing against
Be a grown up adult
Be objective and capable of arguing like adults
You have demonstrated that you lack the above qualities, so spare us the nonsense of you "educating" others, and your arrogance that seems to be a lifestyle these days for the morally challenged, information lacking crowd that you seem to belong to.
You seem to be in dire need to grow up first and then get an education next.
But then again, it is well known that the vast majority of people on the left suffer from what you are suffering from.

" - and I am done with you."
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Exactly a LOT more than you ever did, obviously. Have you even bothered to do some research?
Where do I start?
How about forbes.com, dailycaller.com and others who ran extensive investigations? Some people dismissed the Daily Mail expose of snopes, its founder, and few of its editors, as "gossip", until the Daily Mail published documents along with photos, which made the author of the Forbes article edit his article to add the facts to them.

Here is a starter for you.
The site's owner's wife, Elyssa Young — a former escort, self-proclaimed "courtesan" and porn actress who ran for Congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004 - is now employed as a Snopes administrator.
That pokes the first hole without even going further in the site's credibility.
Next, her own blog says, she " has performed her Snopes duties" while being high on pot.
Still trying to catch up? I am just starting.
The owner admits that they employ only 6 'editors' scattered across the USA. Mostly doing 'fact checking' from web searches.

Snopes’ main political 'fact checker' is Kim Lacapria, who before joining Snopes, was an 'editor' at the Inquisitr, a blog that is (surpris!) known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes. They got caught several times, and were forced to issue corrections and apologies, several of them due to the editorial 'work' of Lacapria.
Let's allow Lacapria to describe herself.
"And as an openly left-leaning individual myself, I share the befuddlement many liberal pundits and newsmen and women"
Article can still be accessed here.
w w w . inquisitr . com / 402558 / scandal-envy-behind-petraeus-drama-allegations-obama-ignored-benghazi/
To verify who is that go here.
www . snopes . com / author / kim /

Here is one example of snopes flat out lying to make the democratic party look better.
dailycaller . com /2016 / 07 /28 / snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/
Of course snopes's response was an article personally attacking the author of the above article with nothing to debunk his findings and the facts he slapped them with.
Of course other liberal outlets rushed to defend snopes, pointing to some email hoaxes it 'debunked' weeks after even 'right wing' sites already debunked such hoaxes, but that is nothing new.
By now you should be getting it, unless if you view the world from liberal glasses like couple of others who posted here.

"You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

This applies to you, glad you posted it.
Unlike you and others, I prefer facts, not emotionally motivated opinions.

Ryan Cox

April 18, 2017 at 5:22 pm

John Smith (FAKE NAME!),

You seriously must be some kind of special tricorne teabag loser if you spent all this time replying to every comment on this article with those ridiculously TL;DR right-wingnut screeds. You certainly have a lot of unnecessary emotion invested in your politics.

So in response to facts posted, you post a left wing psychotic drivel?
You sure have a lot of emotions/time invested in politics while accusing others of doing so.
Maybe it is time for you to:
1. Grow a spine.
2. Grow up.
3. Get some education.
Oh, and seeing a professional for your obvious hate/anger issues would not hurt too.

"Get outside, get laid, and get a life loser."
Said the loser who almost 13 days after, angrily responded with personal attacks and insults to a post not directed at him.
They should put your photo next to the definitions of lifeless, psychotic, spineless, crazy, libtard, and sore loser.
Oh, and safe to add hypocrite to the above list too.

You come across as one of those occutards (occupy wall street*tards) or antifa crazies. A real loser who calls others names and throws random words without understanding what they mean.
Now, do you have any FACTS to counter the FACTS posted about snopes and other leftist apologist sites masquerading as fact checkers?Or you only respond with juvenile personal attacks which also expose your mental issues and hypocrisy?
It is because of your likes, the lunatics in the so-called democratic party keep getting voted out.
Keep it up, crazy libtard.
(Well, that is redundant, I know)